Please note: Figures for the French and Indian War were left out of the data visualization. This is because very few records were kept during this time, and essentially no data was collected regarding Indian deaths. This makes it impossible to distinguish between causalities and other statistics between the two sides fighting. It is also impossible to tell if the causalities were skewed dramatically towards the losing side.
Description: The graph shows the differing percentages in certain aspects of war such as KIA, POW, number of combatants, and civilians killed. After the data was found, the entire number of each aspect was calculated, and turned into percentages. They were then divided into what percent belonged to the U.S and its allies, and what belonged to the opposing side. There was a lot of varying data but overall it was clear that the winner of the wars (which was usually America) generally had lower losses. The graph is broken up into seven different wars and then 4 different aspects of war. The reason percentages were used is because they give a common unit to use for everything. They also make the visualization easier to relate to. For the last four wars of the graph, the civilian death is 100% not American. This is because the more recent wars were not fought in America, so no civilians were killed. The allies who lost civilians either were not recorded or lost such a small percentage that it wouldn’t show up on the graph. Prisoners of War (POW’s) are another outlier in the last section of the graph. This is again because the wars weren’t fought in America, so America couldn’t put POW camps up in their country like they could in previous wars. Additionally, the data used was American, and the writers of this data cared more about how bad the other countries were for taking prisoners. This means very little focus was put on the amount of prisoners the US and allies took, meaning that the number isn’t official. This is reflected in our graph by the 100% of foreign POWs and the 0% American POW’s that are present in the last four wars. Analysis: Imbalance in resources between sides of a war results in a higher imbalance in the outcome. If one side had significantly more people, natural resources, land, and/or technology, than the outcome of the war would be very imbalanced. However, if the two sides had fairly equivalent resources, than the outcome would be more balanced. For example, there’s the War of 1812. This is an instance where the countries were close in power, so the outcome was close too. The Americans had less people killed in action than the British, but the difference between the two was small. The reason this war was so even was because the countries (America and the British Empire) were even in weapons and soldiers, so the killed in action and wounded total was similar on both sides. However, this was a war in which more people died of disease than actual battle causes. The diseases hit the Americans way harder, so there was far more death for us. But putting aside the natural causes, the rest of the war was balanced. The only outlier on the graph is civilian death. There is no civilian death recorded because the battles were fought at sea or in America. And since all the British civilians were not near the battle, none were killed. Other than that, the war of 1812 was well balanced between the two countries.
Another closely balances war was the Mexican American War. Though more Mexicans died than Americans, the numbers were closer than in many other wars (the ratio was roughly 2:3). This shows how both sides had very similar resources, and sent a similar number of combatants. The Americans had slightly more resources because they were able to defeat the Mexican army, which gave America the upper hand. The interesting thing about this war is the civilian casualties. The civilian deaths were not recorded because America and Mexico both claimed the land as theirs during the time of the fighting. This made it impossible to tell if the civilians who died were classified as American or Mexican. So this area is left blank on the graph due to lack of information. Unlike the Mexican American war and the War of 1812, the outcome of the Civil War was not very balanced. Not only did the North have nearly twice as many amputees as the South after the war, but the North also had over twice the combatants, twice the wounded, and twice the number killed in action. This entire imbalance was due to the fact that the North and South were imbalanced before the war even started. The North was larger than the South and had a greater population. As far as weapons go, the North was the side that had all the factories to make the ammunition and guns, while the South had more farmland and food growers. The fact that the North had so many more people and weapons is what caused the war's outcome to be so far from even. The North had the ability to kill more people and wreak more havoc on the South, which is ultimately why they didn't just win; they won by a landslide. The Spanish American War is another example of great imbalance. Only about five percent of the death in this war was American, and the rest of the dead were Spanish soldiers and citizens. Additionally, there was a huge disease outbreak that caused over 95% of the total Spanish death. The imbalance in disease was due to the Americans bringing diseases that were foreign to the other side. The US and its allies in this war also had a bigger military, which helped them win the war. Next on the graph is World War One. Casualties for World War One do not seem to support the thesis at first glance. More people died on the winning side than the losing side. This simply implies that the two sides were more evenly matched. However, at closer look, the countries on the losing side had a smaller combined population than those of the Allied Powers. Therefore, a larger percentage of the population died on the losing side, which again shows the imbalance. This was created by the higher populations in the Allied countries and by more advanced technology on the winning side. For civilians, the war wasn’t fought in America, so no American civilians were killed. While civilians for the allies were killed, these numbers weren’t kept exactly. This is because the main focus was the killed and missing in action. The number of total civilians dead also doesn’t exist today due to the great number of countries and the lack of records.
The imbalance between North and South Korean casualties in the Korean War was because of the imbalance created by international troops. Though both sides were helped by foreign troops, South Korea had help from roughly 20 other countries. This imbalance gave South Korea an advantage and led to the greater imbalance in the end result. Less is known about the casualties in the Vietnam War because many of the Vietnamese deaths weren't officially counted. The distinction between North and South Vietnam was also not recorded. However, it's clear that these wars were uneven. There was also the issue of multiple countries being involved in this conflict. It's also difficult to tell for sure who won that war because while the US didn't achieve their goal of stopping communism, they did have less casualties. After the nearly twenty years of fighting ended, the Americans and countries fighting on our side had roughly two thirds the amount of death as the North Vietnamese and Viet Kong had. This imbalance was again due to the Americans having a larger army and being a bigger country. The First Gulf war involved multiple countries as well. It was allies against Iraq, and was extremely uneven. The allies (including America) had 300,000 more combatants than the opposing side. This led to the allies only making up 1.79% of the total death, while the other side lost 27,500 people (the other 98.21%). This shows that the Allies had greater numbers, so they had the ability to kill far more people. Compared to the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War had far less of an imbalance in the causalities. This was because there were far fewer troops fighting against Iraq, which meant that there was less of an imbalance. This was caused by opposition against the war from many countries. Since the sides of the war were closer to evenly matched, the outcome had less of an imbalance. In conclusion, the thesis was proved to be correct because in all the wars on the graph showed some imbalance in the resources and losses between sides. However, these imbalances were of varying degrees. Some wars started off with a huge difference in balance, and that difference changed throughout the course of the war. There are a lot of other factors that play into to how much something is balanced or not balanced. But the general thesis is the same for all the wars examined, even though they were different sizes, time periods, and locations.
B Block
D Block
F Block
Please note: Figures for the French and Indian War were left out of the data visualization. This is because very few records were kept during this time, and essentially no data was collected regarding Indian deaths. This makes it impossible to distinguish between causalities and other statistics between the two sides fighting. It is also impossible to tell if the causalities were skewed dramatically towards the losing side.
Description:
The graph shows the differing percentages in certain aspects of war such as KIA, POW, number of combatants, and civilians killed. After the data was found, the entire number of each aspect was calculated, and turned into percentages. They were then divided into what percent belonged to the U.S and its allies, and what belonged to the opposing side. There was a lot of varying data but overall it was clear that the winner of the wars (which was usually America) generally had lower losses. The graph is broken up into seven different wars and then 4 different aspects of war. The reason percentages were used is because they give a common unit to use for everything. They also make the visualization easier to relate to.
For the last four wars of the graph, the civilian death is 100% not American. This is because the more recent wars were not fought in America, so no civilians were killed. The allies who lost civilians either were not recorded or lost such a small percentage that it wouldn’t show up on the graph.
Prisoners of War (POW’s) are another outlier in the last section of the graph. This is again because the wars weren’t fought in America, so America couldn’t put POW camps up in their country like they could in previous wars. Additionally, the data used was American, and the writers of this data cared more about how bad the other countries were for taking prisoners. This means very little focus was put on the amount of prisoners the US and allies took, meaning that the number isn’t official. This is reflected in our graph by the 100% of foreign POWs and the 0% American POW’s that are present in the last four wars.
Analysis:
Imbalance in resources between sides of a war results in a higher imbalance in the outcome. If one side had significantly more people, natural resources, land, and/or technology, than the outcome of the war would be very imbalanced. However, if the two sides had fairly equivalent resources, than the outcome would be more balanced.
For example, there’s the War of 1812. This is an instance where the countries were close in power, so the outcome was close too. The Americans had less people killed in action than the British, but the difference between the two was small. The reason this war was so even was because the countries (America and the British Empire) were even in weapons and soldiers, so the killed in action and wounded total was similar on both sides. However, this was a war in which more people died of disease than actual battle causes. The diseases hit the Americans way harder, so there was far more death for us. But putting aside the natural causes, the rest of the war was balanced. The only outlier on the graph is civilian death. There is no civilian death recorded because the battles were fought at sea or in America. And since all the British civilians were not near the battle, none were killed. Other than that, the war of 1812 was well balanced between the two countries.
Another closely balances war was the Mexican American War. Though more Mexicans died than Americans, the numbers were closer than in many other wars (the ratio was roughly 2:3). This shows how both sides had very similar resources, and sent a similar number of combatants. The Americans had slightly more resources because they were able to defeat the Mexican army, which gave America the upper hand. The interesting thing about this war is the civilian casualties. The civilian deaths were not recorded because America and Mexico both claimed the land as theirs during the time of the fighting. This made it impossible to tell if the civilians who died were classified as American or Mexican. So this area is left blank on the graph due to lack of information.
Unlike the Mexican American war and the War of 1812, the outcome of the Civil War was not very balanced. Not only did the North have nearly twice as many amputees as the South after the war, but the North also had over twice the combatants, twice the wounded, and twice the number killed in action. This entire imbalance was due to the fact that the North and South were imbalanced before the war even started. The North was larger than the South and had a greater population. As far as weapons go, the North was the side that had all the factories to make the ammunition and guns, while the South had more farmland and food growers. The fact that the North had so many more people and weapons is what caused the war's outcome to be so far from even. The North had the ability to kill more people and wreak more havoc on the South, which is ultimately why they didn't just win; they won by a landslide.
The Spanish American War is another example of great imbalance. Only about five percent of the death in this war was American, and the rest of the dead were Spanish soldiers and citizens. Additionally, there was a huge disease outbreak that caused over 95% of the total Spanish death. The imbalance in disease was due to the Americans bringing diseases that were foreign to the other side. The US and its allies in this war also had a bigger military, which helped them win the war.
Next on the graph is World War One. Casualties for World War One do not seem to support the thesis at first glance. More people died on the winning side than the losing side. This simply implies that the two sides were more evenly matched. However, at closer look, the countries on the losing side had a smaller combined population than those of the Allied Powers. Therefore, a larger percentage of the population died on the losing side, which again shows the imbalance. This was created by the higher populations in the Allied countries and by more advanced technology on the winning side. For civilians, the war wasn’t fought in America, so no American civilians were killed. While civilians for the allies were killed, these numbers weren’t kept exactly. This is because the main focus was the killed and missing in action. The number of total civilians dead also doesn’t exist today due to the great number of countries and the lack of records.
The imbalance between North and South Korean casualties in the Korean War was because of the imbalance created by international troops. Though both sides were helped by foreign troops, South Korea had help from roughly 20 other countries. This imbalance gave South Korea an advantage and led to the greater imbalance in the end result.
Less is known about the casualties in the Vietnam War because many of the Vietnamese deaths weren't officially counted. The distinction between North and South Vietnam was also not recorded. However, it's clear that these wars were uneven. There was also the issue of multiple countries being involved in this conflict. It's also difficult to tell for sure who won that war because while the US didn't achieve their goal of stopping communism, they did have less casualties. After the nearly twenty years of fighting ended, the Americans and countries fighting on our side had roughly two thirds the amount of death as the North Vietnamese and Viet Kong had. This imbalance was again due to the Americans having a larger army and being a bigger country.
The First Gulf war involved multiple countries as well. It was allies against Iraq, and was extremely uneven. The allies (including America) had 300,000 more combatants than the opposing side. This led to the allies only making up 1.79% of the total death, while the other side lost 27,500 people (the other 98.21%). This shows that the Allies had greater numbers, so they had the ability to kill far more people.
Compared to the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War had far less of an imbalance in the causalities. This was because there were far fewer troops fighting against Iraq, which meant that there was less of an imbalance. This was caused by opposition against the war from many countries. Since the sides of the war were closer to evenly matched, the outcome had less of an imbalance.
In conclusion, the thesis was proved to be correct because in all the wars on the graph showed some imbalance in the resources and losses between sides. However, these imbalances were of varying degrees. Some wars started off with a huge difference in balance, and that difference changed throughout the course of the war. There are a lot of other factors that play into to how much something is balanced or not balanced. But the general thesis is the same for all the wars examined, even though they were different sizes, time periods, and locations.